Forum:RFR/AFS votes
We've never really discussed how many votes are required for an RFR to be successful, and if there are any additional criteria which must be met. So, I've listed some ideas below, hopefully we can resolve this before the current RFRs go through. Feel free to comment/make any other suggestions. * RFR's must have a positive vote count of at least (+''x'') (where x''= an agreed upon number) * RFR's must have a positive vote count of at least (+''x), and must have a (+''x'') vote by administrators ----------- Also never really talked about is the AFS vote. What margins are required for the article to be kept/deleted? I was thinking that +2 or +3 would be a good idea, but I'm not really sure. Also, what do we do at the end of the two weeks if it's a tie, or less than the above required vote count? I can think of either- keeping, deleting, or continuing the vote indefinitely until the required vote margin is met. 00:43, September 2, 2010 (UTC) :No, there should not be the second thing with the admins vote. Admins are just normal users; don't turn it into a position please. Beyond that, instead of a specific number, why not a percent? In fact, it could apply to everything. Say, 60%? Admin noms could even require 70. 01:02, September 2, 2010 (UTC) ::For AfS, im not sure, as it usually takes a while before we get a +2 or +3 on a request :P We still have stuff from July still on a basicly equal concensous. ----- It's Magic - Kingcjc 08:20, September 2, 2010 (UTC) * Ok, well, how about this? For AFS, a margin of 2 for deletions to be kept/removed, and can go on indefinitely until this margin is reached (having at the top of a page doesn't really interfere too much with an article). For RFR, +5 for sucessful rollback, +10 for successful admin/bureaucrat? Just putting some suggestions out there to try and get something through 06:44, September 26, 2010 (UTC) ::I still think that it is better to have all requests open for one/two weeks, and go off the percent of support at the end of that. Neutrals don't count towards the percent. With Brickipedia constantly growing, it is better to have this instead of constantly modifying the rules every time we get more editors. 14:10, September 26, 2010 (UTC) Howabout a margin of 2 for AFS, a margin of three for RFR. If either of these result in a tie or aren't different enough, wait another week. 21:32, September 27, 2010 (UTC) :Once again, why not just with percents? Then we don't need to change this whenever we get a significant increase or decrease in users :/ 22:03, September 27, 2010 (UTC) Sure. 22:03, September 27, 2010 (UTC) * Ok, fair enough, I could go with percents in most cases, but what about when there is 1 or 2 for, 0 against? That's 100%, but hardly a consensus. Also, I think we'd need higher than 60%, seems a little marginal to me. 70/75%-80/85% sounds a little better to me personally. 23:06, September 27, 2010 (UTC) ::K. I suppose we could have a minimum of three votes rule or something as well. 23:12, September 27, 2010 (UTC) :::Three + votes and a 70% (RfR) or 80% (RfA) sounds about right. Something like that ----- It's Magic - Kingcjc 15:09, October 1, 2010 (UTC) ::::Sounds great to me 23:32, October 1, 2010 (UTC) * Archived decision on RFR, however AFS still needs to be resolved. 04:57, October 16, 2010 (UTC)